The Sandusky of Science

[Flixy]

If this goes to trial, then the court may be required to determine what the facts are.

For Mann's side to prevail, they'll have to prove (among other things) that the claims are of a factual nature but are demonstrably untruthful. They will also have to prove that the dingdongs showed a reckless disregard for the truthfulness of their (allegedly factual) claims. (and then there's the issue of proving actual malice)

If the dingdongs demonstrate that their claims are truthful, they're of course off the hook. If they demonstrate that the accusation of scientific fraud does not deal with a matter of fact, they may be off the hook. If they demonstrate that they were simply expressing opinions, they may be off the hook. If it turns out that their claims were untruthful but were not simply expressions of opinion or some sort of fair commentary, sure, you'd definitely end up dealing with the issue of whether or not they really believe the research to be fraudulent. But much of the rest may require the court to establish, for the purposes of law, what the facts of the matter are.

Much of the rest isn't so much then, plus, it's about whether the data is fraudulent, nto about facts of climate change (just whether the data is real, not what the conclusions are).

I'm curious what you think should happen to any anonymous reviewer (for a journal) who claims that the data in the manuscript they're reviewing is fraudulent? Should they be sued for libel?

I would assume that a reviewer would generally not claim it is fraudulent but that he suspects it is, report it, and have it investigated. If the investigation comes up 100% clean and you still publicly accuse someone of committing fraud even though you know it's not fraud would be the situation Aimless is describing. Problem is of course that no investigation is usually 100% sure, if someone is clean after an investigation that just means there isn't (enough) evidence to convict, and one can quite easily claim they don't trust the investigation and still believe fraud was committed, which makes it not libel. Accusing someone of committing a crime even though they were cleared by an investigation happens all the time though, also in the media, and that's not necessarily a bad thing (sometimes people do get cleared while they are actually guilty, investigative journalism can sometimes actually find new evidence and bring justice in the end, etc).

Plus, this was posted on a Blog, aren't those pretty much the definition of someone posting their opinion​?

[Khendraja'aro]

The "facts" of climate science is there are a number of different models out there and plenty of different measured results for different periods of time. Most to all of them are scientifically supportable. We don't have facts, we have interpretations and that's one of the reasons the courts want to avoid exactly what you want.

Well, then those guys are perfectly allowed to say that he draws the wrong conclusions or that their opinion differs on certain points.

However, as soon as you're accusing someone of fraud, you better bring evidence to the table - actual facts. Because if you don't have any evidence nor facts, then this is mere libel.

And if a court clears someone of fraud, then those guys defaming someone for fraud should
a) provide stronger evidence or
b) show that the court did something unlawful or
c) shut their mouths.

I'm not quite sure where you guys are living that you can freely allow people to accuse other people of a crime without any serious evidence all day long. Are you living in such a 3rd world country then?

[Loki]

So if I accuse a psychic of fraud, I'm committing libel unless I can prove that this specific psychic is a cheat?

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm not quite sure where you guys are living that you can freely allow people to accuse other people of a crime without any serious evidence all day long. Are you living in such a 3rd world country then?

What crime was Mann accused of?

[Aimless]

So if I accuse a psychic of fraud, I'm committing libel unless I can prove that this specific psychic is a cheat?

Are all scientists fraudsters?

[Loki]

Irrelevant. Libel applies to claims against a person.

[Khendraja'aro]

So if I accuse a psychic of fraud, I'm committing libel unless I can prove that this specific psychic is a cheat?

Well, if you're unable to prove that a psychic is a fraud then you've got other problems.

What crime was Mann accused of?

Last time I looked, fraud was a crime.

[RandBlade]

That sentence comparing to a paedophile was removed, but Mann is suing because the article wasn't so therefore its the article itself (and not just that sentence) that lies behind this lawsuit.

Suing others for scientific discourse is not a good notion. The climate change sceptics may be wrong, but then was Galileo wrong when prevailing opinion thought he was so he was put on trial?

Who here supports putting these sceptics on trial but opposes the trial of Galileo and why?

[Dreadnaught]

Well, then those guys are perfectly allowed to say that he draws the wrong conclusions or that their opinion differs on certain points.

However, as soon as you're accusing someone of fraud, you better bring evidence to the table - actual facts. Because if you don't have any evidence nor facts, then this is mere libel.

And if a court clears someone of fraud, then those guys defaming someone for fraud should
a) provide stronger evidence or
b) show that the court did something unlawful or
c) shut their mouths.

I'm not quite sure where you guys are living that you can freely allow people to accuse other people of a crime without any serious evidence all day long. Are you living in such a 3rd world country then?

A person calling a researcher's work bogus and agenda-driven isn't paving the way to prosecute that researcher for a crime. At least that's how it works in non-totalitarian societies.

That sentence comparing to a paedophile was removed, but Mann is suing because the article wasn't so therefore its the article itself (and not just that sentence) that lies behind this lawsuit.

Suing others for scientific discourse is not a good notion. The climate change sceptics may be wrong, but then was Galileo wrong when prevailing opinion thought he was so he was put on trial?

Who here supports putting these sceptics on trial but opposes the trial of Galileo and why?

As Aimless said, the difference is that Mann is "the good guy".

[RandBlade]

Pretty sure contemporary opinion would have viewed Urban VIII as "the good guy" so I'm guessing Minx supported putting Galileo on trial too then?

[LittleFuzzy]

Last time I looked, fraud was a crime.

Fraud is a general English term. There is also a subset of fraudulent behavior which is criminalized and which is more precisely called "criminal fraud." If Mann's work were fraudulent he might be open to civil claims but the blog never alleged criminal fraud.

[Aimless]

That sentence comparing to a paedophile was removed, but Mann is suing because the article wasn't so therefore its the article itself (and not just that sentence) that lies behind this lawsuit.

Suing others for scientific discourse is not a good notion. The climate change sceptics may be wrong, but then was Galileo wrong when prevailing opinion thought he was so he was put on trial?

Who here supports putting these sceptics on trial but opposes the trial of Galileo and why?

good methodology, no fraud, no libel (truth = absolute defense). Galileo pwns your puny argument

[Aimless]

Well, if you're unable to prove that a psychic is a fraud time I looked, fraud was a crime.

In this case more of a civil offense although given the billions of dollars and human lives and puppydogs lost maybe it should be seen as a felony :-O

[Lewkowski]

good methodology, no fraud, no libel (truth = absolute defense). Galileo pwns your puny argument

Are you being deliberately dense? Who decides if something is truth? Hint: People.

[Flixy]

Are you being deliberately dense? Who decides if something is truth? Hint: People.

What about Science? If something can be proven, it is true, whether the vast majority of the people agree or not (I will concede that things like climate change are not proven, just likely, but there are a lot of things that can be directly proven).

[Loki]

You're working under the assumption that every society (and its courts) is willing to defer to science.

[Flixy]

You're working under the assumption that every society (and its courts) is willing to defer to science.

While I'm fairly sure the courts weren't like that for Galileo, in fact I doubt they were unbiased and fair in most ways, I am confident that the US judicial system is sensible in that sense, yes, and that's what the thread's originally is about.

[Nessus]

Are you being deliberately dense? Who decides if something is truth? Hint: People.

Another Lysenkoist, what a surprise

[RandBlade]

good methodology, no fraud, no libel (truth = absolute defense). Galileo pwns your puny argument

No he doesn't. At the time his methodology was considered flawed and he was considered to have attacked Pope Urban VIII. Also what he argued at the time could not yet be proven to be truth.

I'm not normally one for slippery slope arguments but I find the notion that courts and juries, rather than rigorous scientific method should determine what is and is not good science to be absolutely abhorrent.

[Aimless]

No he doesn't. At the time his methodology was considered flawed and he was considered to have attacked Pope Urban VIII. Also what he argued at the time could not yet be proven to be truth.

I'm not normally one for slippery slope arguments but I find the notion that courts and juries, rather than rigorous scientific method should determine what is and is not good science to be absolutely abhorrent.

Er, clearly you don't hold the scientific approach to discerning truth in particularly high regard considering the above comparison of course, I know you profess to hold the scientific approach in high regard, so the disconnect is a little puzzling. Galileo's (and his idol's) approach was of a higher quality wrt its ability to discover truths about the real world than that of various parts of the Church. Even if Galileo was the one on trial, his position was analogous to Mann's. I'd say that the clergy's position was analogous to that of aforementioned dingdongs but, to be fair, they were truthful in their accusations of heresy, even if they were wrong about physical reality. Do you expect the basics of the scientific approach--the more philosophical aspects rather than the purely technical ones--to change so dramatically as to make the present approach look exactly like Galileo's trial for heresy?

[Loki]

Er, clearly you don't hold the scientific approach to discerning truth in particularly high regard considering the above comparison of course, I know you profess to hold the scientific approach in high regard, so the disconnect is a little puzzling. Galileo's (and his idol's) approach was of a higher quality wrt its ability to discover truths about the real world than that of various parts of the Church. Even if Galileo was the one on trial, his position was analogous to Mann's. I'd say that the clergy's position was analogous to that of aforementioned dingdongs but, to be fair, they were truthful in their accusations of heresy, even if they were wrong about physical reality. Do you expect the basics of the scientific approach--the more philosophical aspects rather than the purely technical ones--to change so dramatically as to make the present approach look exactly like Galileo's trial for heresy?

The point is that if you had the courts decide this question when Galileo was around, they'd inevitably rule against him.

[Aimless]

The point is that if you had the courts decide this question when Galileo was around, they'd inevitably rule against him.

Hang on, would you accept that as sufficient reason for abolishing courts in our day? Courts around Galileo's time and earlier (as well as later) have done all sorts of things we consider to be wrong, unjust or insane. But we do not, in fact, live in Galileo's time. This sort of reasoning is truly puzzling to me. If science has in the past appeared to lead us astray, should we abandon the scientific method entirely? If doctors believed ludicrous things about the body before, does that mean we should reject modern medicine? If a doctor deliberately goes against best practice guidelines based on science and evidence, and in so doing harms a patient, do you believe we should have no other recourse than to let it slide? If people had terrible beliefs about human rights, or about what was right, does that mean we should reject any attempt to say, today, what our rights are, or what is the right thing to do? We can and should continue our attempts to find out what the truth is, whenever and wherever necessary. Past failures should not change our commitment to that mission.

[Loki]

What makes you think that courts are any more suited to deciding scientific questions today?

[RandBlade]

Er, clearly you don't hold the scientific approach to discerning truth in particularly high regard considering the above comparison of course, I know you profess to hold the scientific approach in high regard, so the disconnect is a little puzzling. Galileo's (and his idol's) approach was of a higher quality wrt its ability to discover truths about the real world than that of various parts of the Church. Even if Galileo was the one on trial, his position was analogous to Mann's. I'd say that the clergy's position was analogous to that of aforementioned dingdongs but, to be fair, they were truthful in their accusations of heresy, even if they were wrong about physical reality. Do you expect the basics of the scientific approach--the more philosophical aspects rather than the purely technical ones--to change so dramatically as to make the present approach look exactly like Galileo's trial for heresy?

I do hold the Scientific Method better than mob rule/enforcement. It doesn't matter how much evidence you have, good science demands free speech. Science should be open to testing, critics, nuts and naysayers. As sometimes they're right and we're wrong.

Instead you want a TRIAL? Well that's not good science. Galileo is not analogous to Mann, Pope Urban VIII is analogous to Mann. A jury of peers should never decide what is right and wrong in science.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Suing others for scientific discourse is not a good notion.

True. Not sure if this can be qualified as scientific discourse though. Not saying that that would mean suing is the right way.

The climate change sceptics may be wrong, but then was Galileo wrong when prevailing opinion thought he was so he was put on trial?

Who here supports putting these sceptics on trial but opposes the trial of Galileo and why?

I get so tired of sceptics equation to Galileo. But to answer your question, neither should be put on trial of course.

Most sceptic arguments can be ignored in a scientific debate since they're not based on science. And the sceptical arguments that do hold some water are often shared by both sides. I believe that man made global warming is a fact. But I'd still consider myself a sceptic.

[Dreadnaught]

Hang on, would you accept that as sufficient reason for abolishing courts in our day? Courts around Galileo's time and earlier (as well as later) have done all sorts of things we consider to be wrong, unjust or insane. But we do not, in fact, live in Galileo's time. This sort of reasoning is truly puzzling to me. If science has in the past appeared to lead us astray, should we abandon the scientific method entirely? If doctors believed ludicrous things about the body before, does that mean we should reject modern medicine? If a doctor deliberately goes against best practice guidelines based on science and evidence, and in so doing harms a patient, do you believe we should have no other recourse than to let it slide? If people had terrible beliefs about human rights, or about what was right, does that mean we should reject any attempt to say, today, what our rights are, or what is the right thing to do? We can and should continue our attempts to find out what the truth is, whenever and wherever necessary. Past failures should not change our commitment to that mission.

Just because modern first world courts are better than Middle Ages/Renaissance courts doesn't mean they should be judging everything under the sun.

One key reasons modern courts are superior is because they take a great deal of care to determine what they should and should not have purview over. Stupid Internet fights are one area where they generally try to stay away (except in the UK apparently).